[Lex Computer & Tech Group/LCTG] earth.com article

[Donald Cooke]

My take on this is that there is *lots* of evidence (data/observations /
Webb & Hubble images, etc) available to astronomers now. For eighty years
astronomers have unsuccessfully tried to find ways to support the dark
matter/energy hypothesis, within the constraints of current theories that
posit constants are constants and energy of light doesn't diminish over
time.

My reading of the earth.com piece is that the new theory uses exactly the
same evidence as all other theories, but asks "what if the constants aren't
constant and the energy of light might diminish over time". This leads to a
completely different theory that doesn't require dark energy and matter.

Basically they're saying, "Dark matter and energy are today's phlogiston.
Let's discard them and move on."

And there's plenty of evidence to support this: the exact same evidence
that has supported dark stuff for almost a century. It's just a
revolutionary way to interpret the evidence.

I think it's rather interesting, and how nice to have a way to get beyond
the fruitless "dark" distraction.


Don Cooke, Site 523, 603.219.9259
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.toku.us/pipermail/lctg-toku.us/attachments/20240319/7c31d570/attachment.htm>